a wide range of attitudinal and behavioural attributes which could be accepted by the court. Since it is the police and parents who are responsible for complaints and hence the definition of non-criminal female delinquency, it is their demands which face the magistrates in the adjudication process.
In uncontrollable cases it is usually the policewomen who are the complainants, although parents may frequently be responsible for the initial contact with police or welfare agency. Aware of the legalism of the children's court, with
its insistence on adequate evidence of uncontrollability (although without any specifiable legal criteria of proof of such), the policewomen attempt to tender as evidence a statement by parents which satisfies both clauses of the legal definition of uncontrollable; that is, evidence of the girl's misbehaviours proves that the girl is "not controllable", and an admission by parents confirms that she is also "not in fact controlled" by parents. In these instances it is the demands of parents in their definition of the girl's delinquent behaviour which face the court, although the policewomen officially may be the
complainants in the case.
Any form of sex delinquency may be included in the
evidence for uncontrollability, or it may form the evidence for the policewomen's complaint of exposure to moral danger. The court then faces the demands of the policewomen, who see the
necessity for a court referral when an under-age girl is engaging in sex delinquency and is considered likely to continue. Between the ages of 16-18, sexual activity when associated with other delinquent behaviour is also considered sufficient evidence of exposure to moral danger.
In the adjudication of these cases of non-criminal behaviour there is a tendency for the magistrates, although with some reservations, to accept the definitions of female delinquency which are presented to them by policewomen and parents. Although they express a concern to evaluate the evidence in all cases, they see such parent-daughter conflict and sex delinquency as sufficiently serious to warrant
intervention. Since this area is one where the concept of legal rights in the proof of guilt is not seen as applicable, and also where there is a strong emphasis of the welfare ideology that any sanctions are to be imposed with a concern for the interests of the girl, then the adjudication process will support and legitimate the authority of the policewomen.
It also reaffirms the right of parents to seek assistance from agencies of formal social control in the regulation of their daughter's behaviour. The magistrates thus enforce the child
status and hence the female status of the adolescent girl; and when sexual behaviour is involved, her female status.
Again, the response to the girl and her parents during the court hearing will depend on the individual magistrate and his choice of interactional style. Magistrates will differ to the extent that they comment on the girl's deviance and perhaps verbally sanction parents for their inadequacies in certain
areas. There will also be differences in their presentation and explanation of the charge to the girl and her parents, and in their presentation and justification for the court order made, and hence in the definition given to the girl of her age and
sex status.
However, the magistrates' concern for suitable and adequate custody and supervision of the girl's activities in
6.28
their disposition decision continues the process of the enforcement of the child status of the adolescent girl.
Furthermore, their concern for such custody and supervision in cases of serious sex delinquency reinforces the female status of the girl. For, irrespective of how non-criminal female delinquency is defined, the primary concern of the court in disposition decisions is the prevention of those behaviours which brought the girl to the court.
The magistrates will accept the welfare workers'
preference for probation for a first offender when the family situation is evaluated as sufficiently adequate, with the
additional support from the welfare worker to rehabilitate the girl in the community. Alternatively, custody of the girl may be available with an interested and responsible relative when the parents reject or are perceived as disinterested or
inadequate. Non-state institutional custody of a first offender is also considered by the magistrates as a viable alternative. It is justified on the basis of the ianbility of the parents to continue responsibility for the girl within the context of a positive evaluation of the rehabilitation resources of the institution. This is in contrast to the welfare workers' tendency to see a pragmatic justification for such a control measure.
With respect to persistent offenders, the magistrates see institutionalization as justified in terms of the girl's
refusal to conform. Her behaviours take on the status of "offenses" and thus prior record becomes a sufficient rationalization for the court order.